The worst thing about Mormonism

[_GoodK]

Well, quite interesting. I think the evolutionary speculations are facile and quite strained, however, and add nothing to the argument for the reason that, to me, this is a textbook example of the extension of Darwinian concepts from the mechanics of phylogenetic development into areas in which evolutionary theory begins making great bounding leaps into regions where its explanatory power evaporates and is taken over by a scientisitic exercise in pseudo teleology, or, the attempt to use evolutionary theory to explain what existence means, as opposed to being content in explaining its presence, in a strictly cause and effect, mechanical sense.

The explanation regarding the purpose or function of religious knowing really isn't relevant to a Gospel understanding of reality because revelation and spiritual perception and knowledge are relative to the perfection and development of the human species in a spiritual, moral, and intellectual sense, not about his survival. Indeed, our biological survival is irrelevant to our spiritual development. Hence, ancient faithful Christians were terrified of the pains they would suffer being thrown to the Lions, but had no fear of the death that would result, as that has no bearing on our ultimate spiritual development.

This would also be true of non-LDS and certain non-Christian religions as well, to the degree they have truth or have, through various techniques, transcended some aspects of normative waking consciousness or experience. Biology is a given fact. It is the evolution of consciousness that is the question for religion, not the survival value of religious belief. The inherent circularity and empirical nebulousness of evolutionary theory when it extends itself into this kind of explanatory exercise virtually guarantees that some reductionistic model of the biological necessity of religion and its evolutionary trajectory will be found.

Evolutionary theory explains everything, which is why Popper questioned whether evolutionary theory was really a scientific theory at all (though he did not call into question its basic explanatory power within the realm in which it actually has that power), and is one of its primary weaknesses as a theory, at least when it gets out of its collar and runs amok.

That which explains everything, explains, of course, nothing.

Besides not knowing anything about science, this post demonstrates you know little to nothing about the theory of evolution.

our biological survival is irrelevant to our spiritual development.

Statements like this must be another reason why atheists think religion is dangerous.
I imagine some pretty intelligent people think that biological survival is damn relevant and "spiritual development" - whatever that means - isn't

[_antishock8]

Sure, it was religious "belief" that said it, but it also turned out to be a fact that was unknown through science or philosophy.

They didn't know it. They believed it. That's a big difference. I'm sure we don't have to list off the many things, then, that they "knew" and has been proven disastrously wrong. You statement is stunningly short-sighted.

[_dartagnan]

Statements like this must be another reason why atheists think religion is dangerous.

Not defending coggins, because he is an idiot, but on the whole, religion does not attack science. Atheistic scientists, however, are constantly attacking religion, pretending they do in a sense know everything. I mean you have to essentially claim to know everything to make the dogmatic claims some do about how religion is just an evolutionary defect or what not. I mean this crap isn't proved, only assumed. And it is not an assumption based on facts, it is one based on bigotry. It is a fear of the "other," which is what sparks "danger" in all intolerant societies.

Let us assume we are in a period of history when there is no scientific reason to think tobacco is dangerous to health. Suppose that, in that hypothetical time, I had tossed a coin, saying "heads tobacco is dangerous, tails tobacco is not dangerous", and it had come down heads.
Would you then say that tossing a coin had given me "knowledge" about tobacco?

I understand what you're trying to do, which is to blow off evidence in favor of religious knowledge as coincidence or dumb luck. The problem is that nobody was tossing coins to answer such questions back then, so the truth had to have come from somewhere.

Look, the scientific method is extremely limited by its own standard. It can only test what can be observed or perceived by the five senses. Are there other senses by which humans perceive the outside world? Some humans claim yes. Critics claim no, simply because they have not 1) had that experience or 2) assume luck, coincidence or psychological factors explain the evidence.

If one truly has faith only in knowledge confirmed by the scientific method, then one must reject, as "knowledge," the claim that knowledge cannot come from religious means. Why? Because you cannot prove it doesn't, just like 19th century science couldn't prove the dangers of smoking.

[_truth dancer]

Schmoe, Brenda Wright agrees with me. In fact, she is who I had in mind when making this statement.

You do know who Brenda Wright is, right? I mean you wouldn't just blabber away and embarrass yourself like this without knowing what you're talking about, right?

Brenda Wright is an atheist who understands the limitations of the scientific method.

You cannot prove that "knowledge" is not gained from religion, whereas it has been proven that knowledge can be gained by religion. Just one example was the fact that Mormons knew smoking was dangeorus long before science revealed it as such.

Sure, it was religious "belief" that said it, but it also turned out to be a fact that was unknown through science or philosophy.

You have to be a total nit wit to insist knowledge only comes through the scientific method. The irony in this kind of thinking is that it assumes that this is "knowledge" (that knowledge only comes thorugh science) which isn't supported by the scientific method.

Hi Kevin,

See my new thread on the WoW... seems information on smoking was known long before Joseph Smith wrote the WoW.

In addition to the information on that thread, I recently read, "The River Where America Began" and it was clear that early American's did indeed know tobacco was not healthy for the human.

~dancer~

[_Some Schmo]

Schmoe, Brenda Wright agrees with me. In fact, she is who I had in mind when making this statement.

I'm happy for you both.

You do know who Brenda Wright is, right? I mean you wouldn't just blabber away and embarrass yourself like this without knowing what you're talking about, right?

You've typed some pretty stupid things in your time, but this has got to be among the top five.

What difference does it make whether I know this person or not? How does it in any way influence the validity of what I wrote? Do you consider every single person in the world's opinion on something before making an assessment for yourself?

I just love this way you have of talking as though this MB is a stage where everyone observe s and draws the same conclusions as you do. Are you really so ignorant as to think that what you think matters to anyone but yourself in any real, meaningful way? Go stroke yourself in private, please. I doubt anyone wants to watch you do it here.

Embarrass myself? To whom? You? Excuse me, but big f***ing deal. The more you talk, the more you embarrass yourself to me. Do I think you care? I doubt it. Try to imagine how much you don't care multiplied by a billion and you'll start to get an idea approximating how much I care about your opinion.

Brenda Wright is an atheist who understands the limitations of the scientific method.

Good for her.

I'd like to see you quote me where I said science didn't have limitations. But where science is limited, religion and philosophy do little to nothing to fill those gaps.

You cannot prove that "knowledge" is not gained from religion,

Just like you can't prove any other negative... so what?

whereas it has been proven that knowledge can be gained by religion. Just one example was the fact that Mormons knew smoking was dangeorus long before science revealed it as such.

LOL... OMG, talk about embarrassing! And you want people to take you seriously?

Mormons "knew" that, did they? Like the "know" the church is true?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they didn't know smoking was bad for you until the scientific community backed the claim up. Having an idea about something is not the same as knowing it.

Sure, it was religious "belief" that said it, but it also turned out to be a fact that was unknown through science or philosophy.

Again, belief does not equal knowledge. Try looking up those two words and understanding what they actually mean before posting again and embarrassing yourself in front of the audience of this grand stage on which we find ourselves.

And why is it considered a fact today? Because of science, not religion.

You have to be a total nit wit to insist knowledge only comes through the scientific method. The irony in this kind of thinking is that it assumes that this is "knowledge" (that knowledge only comes thorugh science) which isn't supported by the scientific method.

*rolls eyes*

CFR

[_dartagnan]

They didn't know it. They believed it. That's a big difference.

That is a distinction without a difference.

to know: to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to be cognizant or aware of (www.dictionary.com)

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously they did "know" smoking was dangerous.

I'm sure we don't have to list off the many things, then, that they "knew" and has been proven disastrously wrong.

Religion isn't science, so to expect all religious claims and experiences to be exact or consistent is ridiculous. Hell, not even all sciences are exact, such as archaeology and psychology. This is the problem I see with the atheistic criticism. It tries to test religion using science, and when it can't, it rejects it on that basis alone. But you cannot do this any more than you can test philosophy using science.

You statement is stunningly short-sighted.

How so?

[_GoodK]

Statements like this must be another reason why atheists think religion is dangerous.

Not defending coggins, because he is an idiot, but on the whole, religion does not attack science. Atheistic scientists, however, are constantly attacking religion, pretending they do in a sense know everything. I mean you have to essentially claim to know everything to make the dogmatic claims some do about how religion is just an evolutionary defect or what not. I mean this crap isn't proved, only assumed. And it is not an assumption based on facts, it is one based on bigotry. It is a fear of the "other," which is what sparks "danger" in all intolerant societies.

I agree with the above, but I was just saying that when other humans (whether they are scientists, religious leaders, or nonsensical internet Mormons) make a claim about something being more important than "biological survival" it is scary.
It seems dangerous to have people who want to defend Islam more than continue to exist on this planet, or those who want to do God's will more than they want to live, running around with those of us who choose to live in the real world.

I think in many cases the fear that religion is dangerous is a legitimate fear , whether or not the basis of those fears manifest.

[_Some Schmo]

They didn't know it. They believed it. That's a big difference.

That is a distinction without a difference.

to know: to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to be cognizant or aware of (www.dictionary.com)

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously they did "know" smoking was dangerous.

LMAO... alrighty then. I'm curious as to how many would agree with your statement; that is, among people with at least a rudimentary understanding of the English language, of course.

Look, if you want to insist on being a intellectually dishonest, disingenuous dumbass, that's up to you. Who am I to stop you? Enjoy!

PS: This attitude of yours actually explains much of what you write here. What you call knowledge, others generally refer to as an idea, theory, hypothesis, concept, suspicion, or some other similar word, and it's only when the idea is backed up with a large body of evidence does it move to the category of knowledge. So the fact that you make all kind of claims about your "knowledge" should let people know that what you really are talking about are your ideas, theories, hypotheses, concepts, and suspicions.

Dude, why fight it? The church loves people like you. Why leave a perfect fit?

[_beastie]

Well, for heaven's sake, with all the myriad things religion has gotten dead wrong over the years, it would defy probability if they didn't occasionally get something right. (assuming that Kevin can come up with a better example than the tobacco, which, as TD has pointed out, wasn't unknown at the time period)

[_Ren]

The scientific method IS a philosophy. It owes its development and refinement to serious philosophical thought.
...so to praise science and yet bash philosophy is a bit like biting the hand that feeds you.
I'd say solid philosophy forms the basis of any critical thought.

But when we want to talk about what is empirical reality (as opposed to musing about what is 'logically possible' say) science IS the Daddy.
Sure - it ain't perfect, but it's by far the best we have.


Religion? Lots of spiritual truths there - if you're discerning enough.
But as far as empirical reality?
Meh...well - A for effort...